Comments on: Top Fifteen Reasons for Withholding Data or Codehttps://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/
by Steve McIntyreThu, 08 Dec 2016 12:56:06 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Co-Opting the US Department of Energy « Climate Audithttps://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/#comment-317072
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:31:31 +0000/?p=132#comment-317072[…] at CA in October 2005 here. Earlier in February 2005, Jones had famously refused Warwick Hughes as follows: Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. […]
]]>By: We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work… « Climate Audithttps://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/#comment-317022
Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:23:32 +0000/?p=132#comment-317022[…] of you may recall the memorable climate science phrase: We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when […]
]]>By: Brooks Hurdhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/#comment-32569
Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:31:17 +0000/?p=132#comment-32569The AGW team bases their beliefs on two premises. First, that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased dramatically during mankind’s industrialization. Second, that average temperatures have increased in a direct relationship to the increase in CO2 levels.

It would appear that the Jawarowski and Wagner papers undercut the first premise of the AGW proponants. One major underlying assumption of AGW is that CO2 levels were much lower in pre-industrial times.

Clearly the Mann, Jones, and Crowley use of proxy data to determine temperature is open to question. The assumed temperature trends which have lead to Kyoto are certainly highly suspect.

Other than to mention that Wagner et al 2002 addresses some of your questions, there is not much that I could add to the topic.

]]>By: John G. Bellhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/#comment-32566
Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:34:12 +0000/?p=132#comment-32566Couldn’t Wagner’s method be used to look at the past several thousand years? Why not use it to look at more recent times?
]]>By: John G. Bellhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/#comment-32565
Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:23:01 +0000/?p=132#comment-32565Re #19: JerryB, Reference 13 in the paper, Wagner’s work on Holocene CO2, I’ve been trying to figure out how much confidence one can have stomatal frequency as proxy for CO2 concentrations alone. Wagner in the 2004 paper shows a wordwide phenomenon but couldn’t a global average decrease in humidity or an increase in temperature, windspeed or some other factor that increases evaporation and also drive stomatal frequency down? Wagner reads like a methodical and rigorous fellow. The basic idea has a touch of genius in it.

Even if CO2 was higher back in the Holocene, we don’t know what the sun’s luminosity was back then.

The nut content in AGW crowd would make any squirrel happy. Wagner’s work, if correct, doesn’t bury them but does dig a hole. Does his stuff hold up? Any other methods out there that give us a Holocene CO2 chronology?

]]>By: Fred Harwoodhttps://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/#comment-32563
Mon, 03 Oct 2005 15:02:16 +0000/?p=132#comment-32563Re: 2
“… one other factor – co2 derived from Ice cores – the limit seems 280 ppm, from “uncracked” ice which means ice that was not under internal stress due to dissolved volatiles. That suggests CO2 measurements are not of historical CO2 levels but merely the CO2 saturation level of Ice at surface pressures and temperatures. Might be worth following up I think.”

I’m interested in research on the “problem” with ice cores and low levels of CO2. Suggestions, please.